As has been previously stated, in theory, the best possible government for any human society is a benevolent, enlightened dictatorship. The reason it doesn't work that way though is because humans are, to oversimplify it, stupid. Things start out with good intentions, then they change a little, then a lot, then some more, and suddenly it's Stop questioning, work harder, worship King-Emperor Ganzulu I, blessed by the almighty! History is basically one long list of this happening time after time, with brief intermissions of King Good Guy being all chill and kind until his sadistic half-brother murders him with snake venom and usurps his throne, dedicating the rest of his life to messing with the peasants and starting wars in the eternal quest to attain the title of 'History's greatest douche'.

No one in their right minds wants to revert back to absolute monarchy (Despite how easy it is sometimes to wonder if it's actually possible for them to do a worse job than the current, elected incumbent of the boss-chair), and yet, having a figurehead monarch like we do here in the UK, is perfectly fine, better than fine, and it riles and saddens me when people won't see reason on this matter.

It has become terribly unfashionable to retain elements of our past and culture here in England (And note that I say England, not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland; their historical and cultural stock has never been worth more), and it's a crying shame. My country has a rich history, filled with all manner of awesome, stupid and downright craziness, some of which even George R.R Martin couldn't make up, and we get nailed for it, even to this day. The Queen, and indeed our monarchy as a whole, are our figureheads; a rallying point, if you will. Even in the 1940's, still within living memory of some who yet breathe, the backbone of our country's morale consisted of two men: Churchill and the King. I'm asking you to think about this for a moment. Look at the United States. For all its wrongs and weirdness that people love to point out, it's probably the most patriotic western nation on the planet. They've mostly stayed true to what they created themselves from, their roots, their (Fabulously well written) constitution, and if there ever comes a day when the skies darken over North America and the proverbial shit hits the fan, they will have that as their rallying point, and the importance of that should not be underestimated. A sense of identity, of belonging, something or someone to rally behind in times of woe is required by all of us in the dark times, times which we on these forums have had the good fortune to never know. We can and should wish and eternally strive for a world where evil and bad people never darken our doorsteps, but believing we are already there because we have been raised in relative safety is naïve to the extreme.

Some people rant about our Queen and monarchy with such venom, you wonder if they themselves have been personally wronged by her. They shout and rant and stamp their feet, demanding the creation of a British republic, that they be torn from their ivory towers and shown how us poor, downtrodden peasants live. And yet, when you debate this topic with them, the argument is often predictable.

"It's wrong, they shouldn't have power!"
"They don't"
"It's wrong, we shouldn't lose money by paying them to sit there and be rich for nothing!"
"We don't, we make several times more from them existing than they cost us"
".........Well it's just wrong, f**k you, right wing filth"
"Thank you"Almost every time.

If anyone here should have any questions regarding the above argument, I could go into detail but this is already turning out to be something of an essay, so I shall direct you to this short video which puts it all on the table in a rather neat fashion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

When it comes to us trying to forge our countries into something better; creating and polishing our systems of government into something just a little more ideal, there can be nothing more important than reminders of the past, surely? If you stand up right now, then try to think of the most random, idiotic thing your brain is capable of telling your body to do, someone at some point has done the exact same thing. Worse, probably, and it's the same when it comes to governance. The wars we're bogged down in, the wars and fires still being fuelled, the bigotry that still pervades even the most 'modern' of nations, the relentless intolerance, sexism, crime, mind numbing naiveté and selfishness from those we push to the top of the pyramid, supposedly the best and brightest of us all. It continues in a circle, ad infinitum. And so we fumble and we blame, we point fingers at the most visible vestiges of our questionable pasts, and we tear it to pieces. The Russians did so with their monarchy, and ushered in nearly a century of communism. The French did it with theirs, only to put an emperor on the throne a few years later. It is a fact that destruction can often lead to new life, but sometimes... sometimes it just leads to the loss of something important which can never be regained.
You may destroy the titles of king and noble, but kings and nobles there will always be.

You should take a look at how much technology and standards of living have improved since democracy or governments enacting democratic ideas. Even last century, democratic nations advanced a lot more, East vs. West Germany, USA vs. Soviet Union, Japan vs. China (PRC).

Now it's usually not democracy itself that causes the better standards of living. It's the economic freedoms that democracy usually gives that helps out with improving standards of living. China has done a lot better since they've given more economic freedom to their people or people that invest in China. A government that tries to run the lives of a whole nation, usually fails (maybe it could work on a really small scale).

But the answer the original question, what would it take for the monarch to get power back. Economic failure usually helps lead to a change in government. Most of the famous dictators from last century came into power when there was some sort of economic failure in their country. People get desperate when their standard of living gets worse from a worsened economy, and they're turn to more extreme measures to hope their problems get fixed.

Another possible way is if the majority of people like safety more than freedom to the point where they may be willing to sacrifice mostly all their freedoms to feel as safe as possible. A monarch could possibly advocate and achieve that, but I could only see that more in the future where people do not value freedom as much, or have taken freedom for granted.

You are so close but looking from the wrong direction. we have seen 3 major economic collapses just recently, I'm not sure that it changed political policy much at all.The root of the problem is that money always controls everything. Even in fiction. When was the last time a Manga or anime or fairy tale depicted a poor and humble monarchy. This is what separates the ruling class from the masses, they just can't conceptualize how the general public lives. Not to long ago one of our political figures made the remark that there was no working poor. Yeah, were over here. The Math doesn't work either, if you take the average income per household and start subtracting national averages for food, clothing, shelter, transportation and so on, you go in the red real quick. I wish someone other than me would see this, as I am not the King and don't want to be.

Thank you for providing relevant support to your argument, now we have established that intelligence is genetic. Since we will eventually be able to manipulate the genes of babies, I propose that we alter genetics in such a way that all children will be inherently intelligent. Once this occurs, there is no need to change governing practices, since everyone will be equally intelligent and will act in the best interests of all other people. Therefore, all forms of government would be sensible, not just a Monarchy.

He lacks the fundamental understanding of Genetics- that is, that not all genes are inherited, that genes do not control, singly, any one trait, or that we could hope to know if a certain trait, however unseeming it first appears, may have some benefit.

Then we alter the genes of a person so they can have the ability to learn the knowledge that you posess.

He also proposes what amounts to the manipulation of genes, so as to stagnate the gene pool- genetic diversity is such a great thing,

I agree, we need to keep diversity.

it leads to other nice things like Evolution via Darwinian Natural Selection.

And we will soon have the capabilities to alter evolution for the better, so that is why we must change our genetic makeup.

Since the invisible hand of nature,

We have the ability to conquer nature, its hand need not be invisible.

more effective in determining the greater good than the market's invisible hand, would guide us, as a species, to obtain traits that are more suited for our environment,

Then we need to teach people the traits that would provide them with acceptable intelligence.

and since greater wit, it seems, is our species' lot, people like Lordseth23 would be found so utterly repulsive in his stupidity that he will probably not live to pass on his stupidity to the next generation.

Then we need to kill all of the idiots like me in order for all of humanity to have nothing but the greatest of wit.

He also lacks any sense of ethics, morality, or even empathy, a favourite word of his, despite his complete lacking in it, what so ever,

How am I lacking in ethics, morality, and empathy?

as demonstrated by the fact that he would like to force people into his mode, so they will be born in a way that is satisfactory to him.

What is wrong with this?

Lacking in righteousness or morality,

How am I lacking in righteousness or morality?

is it not a fault of democracy that psychopath like him is allowed involvement in our government?

Then kill me and only allow people of exceptional wit to live.

It is clear that, Eugenics beside, man should be organised in the rule of a Monarch and in the rule of specialists according to their expertise, rather than let the hoi polloi in to the fray.

No, we can let the hoi polloi into the fray if they are able to demonstrate an acceptable amount of wit and intelligence.

If we do that, we may eventually get people voting in stupid ideas like Lordseth23's proposal to lock up people with psychological disorder and forcing parents to model their children after what he wants, blinded by the dark veil of ignorance as he is.

How is that idea stupid?

Really, there's too much ignorance in this- not only of the sciences, but of every branch of human learning. Lordseth23 would do well to keep quiet so as to look less stupid.

Thank you for providing relevant support to your argument, now we have established that intelligence is genetic. Since we will eventually be able to manipulate the genes of babies, I propose that we alter genetics in such a way that all children will be inherently intelligent. Once this occurs, there is no need to change governing practices, since everyone will be equally intelligent and will act in the best interests of all other people. Therefore, all forms of government would be sensible, not just a Monarchy.

He lacks the fundamental understanding of Genetics- that is, that not all genes are inherited, that genes do not control, singly, any one trait, or that we could hope to know if a certain trait, however unseeming it first appears, may have some benefit.

Then we alter the genes of a person so they can have the ability to learn the knowledge that you posess.

He also proposes what amounts to the manipulation of genes, so as to stagnate the gene pool- genetic diversity is such a great thing,

I agree, we need to keep diversity.

it leads to other nice things like Evolution via Darwinian Natural Selection.

And we will soon have the capabilities to alter evolution for the better, so that is why we must change our genetic makeup.

Since the invisible hand of nature,

We have the ability to conquer nature, its hand need not be invisible.

more effective in determining the greater good than the market's invisible hand, would guide us, as a species, to obtain traits that are more suited for our environment,

Then we need to teach people the traits that would provide them with acceptable intelligence.

and since greater wit, it seems, is our species' lot, people like Lordseth23 would be found so utterly repulsive in his stupidity that he will probably not live to pass on his stupidity to the next generation.

Then we need to kill all of the idiots like me in order for all of humanity to have nothing but the greatest of wit.

He also lacks any sense of ethics, morality, or even empathy, a favourite word of his, despite his complete lacking in it, what so ever,

How am I lacking in ethics, morality, and empathy?

as demonstrated by the fact that he would like to force people into his mode, so they will be born in a way that is satisfactory to him.

What is wrong with this?

Lacking in righteousness or morality,

How am I lacking in righteousness or morality?

is it not a fault of democracy that psychopath like him is allowed involvement in our government?

Then kill me and only allow people of exceptional wit to live.

It is clear that, Eugenics beside, man should be organised in the rule of a Monarch and in the rule of specialists according to their expertise, rather than let the hoi polloi in to the fray.

No, we can let the hoi polloi into the fray if they are able to demonstrate an acceptable amount of wit and intelligence.

If we do that, we may eventually get people voting in stupid ideas like Lordseth23's proposal to lock up people with psychological disorder and forcing parents to model their children after what he wants, blinded by the dark veil of ignorance as he is.

How is that idea stupid?

Really, there's too much ignorance in this- not only of the sciences, but of every branch of human learning. Lordseth23 would do well to keep quiet so as to look less stupid.

How am I stupid? Do you admit that everybody is capable of possessing the same amount of intelligence and wit, and can also lead a democracy with said intelligence and wit, proving that a democracy can be on par with a monarchy?

I don't think the masses are stupid or uninitiated, it's just that the effort to survive is much more intense as you travel down the hierarchy. I know that when society collapes here, I'll just have to leave earlier so I can get through the check point to go to work. In the overall scheme my priority is to make a living. I know what your thinking, they might mess with my pay or make things more expensive, don't be silly, thats happening now for cryin out loud.

I don't think the masses are stupid or uninitiated, it's just that the effort to survive is much more intense as you travel down the hierarchy. I know that when society collapes here, I'll just have to leave earlier so I can get through the check point to go to work. In the overall scheme my priority is to make a living. I know what your thinking, they might mess with my pay or make things more expensive, don't be silly, thats happening now for cryin out loud.

Don't worry, we will soon be living in a world of abundant resources, so survival will not be as difficult as it is now.

I don't think the masses are stupid or uninitiated, it's just that the effort to survive is much more intense as you travel down the hierarchy. I know that when society collapes here, I'll just have to leave earlier so I can get through the check point to go to work. In the overall scheme my priority is to make a living. I know what your thinking, they might mess with my pay or make things more expensive, don't be silly, thats happening now for cryin out loud.

Don't worry, we will soon be living in a world of abundant resources, so survival will not be as difficult as it is now.

I find nothing wrong with a lack of ethics , morality, and empathy Why the hell should I care about another person when I can build up a personal wall to suffocat my heart so I don't give a damn about anyone else and just want to see destruction but to not be totally off topic I shall answe the question

I honestly couldn't care but it could turn out to be complete horror and as stated above intelligence may be genetic but giving a damn about other people in a trait given by nurture not nature

You seem to thing that because a monarch/emperor isn't reliant on the public to re-elect them into officer that this means that they don't have incentives that are in conflict with doing what is best for the nation. This would be incorrect. There are many things that drive a monarch/emperor just as there are things that drive any human. There have been those that didn't care at all about ruling and lived lives of decadence, while their people suffered. There have those that were so egotistical that they felt the need to leave their mark on the world, whether through war or monuments, and gave little care to the people. There have been those that became fearful of others usurping the throne and/or paranoid of those around them, and committed brutal and vile acts because of it.

Fundamentally wrong- as the Monarchy is, in fact, the state, the nation, so, to say that there can exist a contradiction between the wants of the Monarch and of the State would simply be absurd as to say that the wants of the State and the want of the State is not in agreement. There have been those that have fought wars and those that have built monuments- what of it? The was affects the nation, if it expands the border of the nation, it means that the nation benefits from having a larger border, if the war has lost land, the entire nation suffers the lost of land, if it kills many, then the nation has killed many, and if he erects a monument, it is a monument to the nation and for the nation. The King does not rule on his own, but with ministers, and it is on the advice of the ministers that he acts- if he does ill to secure his throne, it does not affect the running of the nation and, contrarywise, actually improves the running of government by getting rid of elements that would disrupt harmony. That does not exclude the possibility of bad kings and unable ministers, the state can be wrong, the state can misdiagnose itself, but, the benefit of this system is this-- the ministers are more able than the collection of wankers we have now, being choosen based not upon their demagoguery and slickness of tongue, but on competancy.

So, citizens in this nation of Monarchy are irrelevant, then? Let's see the King rule without them. He can be King of the refuse pile, or something. If the citizens of this irrational Monarchy depose the king and hang him, does that mean that the King and the nation committed suicide? The wants of the Monarch are not necessarily the wants of the nation. They may be the wants of the government, but that has little relevance when the mass of the citizens are at the doorstep demanding his head. History has shown there to be little but bad rulers and unable ministers. Collections of wankers have been ruling since time immemorial. Monarchies were well known for the necessity to maintain ones slickness of tongue. Humans lack the ability to solve all their own personal problems, let alone the problems of a nation. There isn't any gene, knowledge, or experience that makes one a competent ruler. Such a thing can't be done with competency in the first place.

People vary too greatly in opinion and culture for any one government body or government type to effectively rule all people. And large government bodies will always struggle to maintain their position of power with so many different people under their rule. People think too grandly when imagining government systems. It's easier for 300 people to govern themselves than it is for one entity to govern 300 million.

You seem to thing that because a monarch/emperor isn't reliant on the public to re-elect them into officer that this means that they don't have incentives that are in conflict with doing what is best for the nation. This would be incorrect. There are many things that drive a monarch/emperor just as there are things that drive any human. There have been those that didn't care at all about ruling and lived lives of decadence, while their people suffered. There have those that were so egotistical that they felt the need to leave their mark on the world, whether through war or monuments, and gave little care to the people. There have been those that became fearful of others usurping the throne and/or paranoid of those around them, and committed brutal and vile acts because of it.

Fundamentally wrong- as the Monarchy is, in fact, the state, the nation, so, to say that there can exist a contradiction between the wants of the Monarch and of the State would simply be absurd as to say that the wants of the State and the want of the State is not in agreement. There have been those that have fought wars and those that have built monuments- what of it? The was affects the nation, if it expands the border of the nation, it means that the nation benefits from having a larger border, if the war has lost land, the entire nation suffers the lost of land, if it kills many, then the nation has killed many, and if he erects a monument, it is a monument to the nation and for the nation. The King does not rule on his own, but with ministers, and it is on the advice of the ministers that he acts- if he does ill to secure his throne, it does not affect the running of the nation and, contrarywise, actually improves the running of government by getting rid of elements that would disrupt harmony. That does not exclude the possibility of bad kings and unable ministers, the state can be wrong, the state can misdiagnose itself, but, the benefit of this system is this-- the ministers are more able than the collection of wankers we have now, being choosen based not upon their demagoguery and slickness of tongue, but on competancy.

So, citizens in this nation of Monarchy are irrelevant, then? Let's see the King rule without them. He can be King of the refuse pile, or something. If the citizens of this irrational Monarchy depose the king and hang him, does that mean that the King and the nation committed suicide? The wants of the Monarch are not necessarily the wants of the nation. They may be the wants of the government, but that has little relevance when the mass of the citizens are at the doorstep demanding his head. History has shown there to be little but bad rulers and unable ministers. Collections of wankers have been ruling since time immemorial. Monarchies were well known for the necessity to maintain ones slickness of tongue. Humans lack the ability to solve all their own personal problems, let alone the problems of a nation. There isn't any gene, knowledge, or experience that makes one a competent ruler. Such a thing can't be done with competency in the first place.

Missing the point- the Monarch is the Nation and the State, the Government, his will is the will of the Nation, and so, his want is the nation's want. When the people vilely go against this natural order and dispose of their king, it is not the nation acting, but the rebels who have acted, and who shall instate into power another government, which is, too, the nation, the state, and whose will is ultimately the state and the nation's will, regardless of what the people want. The mass and the citizen are simply those who have, freely, elected to have the government rule over them and have their collective will expressed via the will of the government, which is both the State and the nation, what is commonly called 'The Social Contract', and if they demand for the destruction of the government, for whatever evil reason, they should pay the price of not having the strength of government to protect them from each other. They have destroyed the nation, there is no national want if there is no government which represents that nation, and which is that nation, and whose wants are the nation's want, and it is the King and able ministers who are the best to administer government.

You continue to mention that there is 'history' which shows that there are nothing 'but bad kings'- such history, is not only uncited but unfounded, and, like our discussion on anarchism, doesn't actually hold when faced with real history, when we see that there are few 'bad rulers', and few 'good rulers', and mostly mediocre rulers, but, so long as the ablest men of the time do hold power, and the system is functioning, there is nothing that does go wrong, for the system is inherently strong, and so strong, that we have had it for most of our history.

When we let the masses in it, we see that this change, governments are unstable- they implement one set of policies, then turn 180 degrees and implement another set, and nothing gets done or gets better. You have let the people have a voice, now the consequence is all there to see, the worse form of government, and those who want it are fully deserving of it.

It's very simple. You will have great highs with a dictatorship(e.g. Alexander the Great) and you will have great lows(e.g. Hitler, Stalin). A democracy or republic will always be fairly corrupt and slow, but it will almost never infringe on basic human rights.

It's very simple. You will have great highs with a dictatorship(e.g. Alexander the Great) and you will have great lows(e.g. Hitler, Stalin). A democracy or republic will always be fairly corrupt and slow, but it will almost never infringe on basic human rights.

Ha, here's the thing about Hitler- his Nazi Party had such a good electoral showing that Hidenberg actually had very little choice but to make Hitler Chancellor. So, don't try to pin old Adolph to the institution of the Monarchy.

Did you say the "Monarchs decide to take the power back." ? I thought you understood that the monarchs do not DECIDE ANYTHING. They are not godly beings nor are they better than any other human being. So no. No one should be ruled over by a filthy inbred pig of a human.